Che Oly Qaths and the Good Clay. 


A 


SERMON 


_ PREACHED ON THE OCCASION OF THE DEDICATION 


OF THE 


SHARON BAPTIST MENTING HOUSE, 


WARREN COUNTY, N.C., 


SEPTEMBER 20th, 1857, 


BY ELDER J. B. SOLOMON, 


WARRENTON, N. C. 


PUBLISHED BY REQUEST OF THE BAPTIST CHURCH, WARRENTON, N. C. 


RICHMOND: 
H. K. ELLYSON, PRINTER, MAIN STREET. 
1857. 


cee te ate Spat Ctl teh PEN ACARI AE A ASOT FUSE 


Baptist Courch WaRRENTON, N. C., 
October 10th, 1857. 
Exper J. B. Sotomon, 


Dear Sir—Ata regular meeting of this church, a resolution 
was passed, and we, the undersigned, appointed a committee, to procure of you 
for publication, a copy of the dedicatory sermon delivered at Sharon, on the third 
Sunday in September, 1857. 

Hoping it may be convenient for you to furnish it at an early moment, we are 


Very truly yours, 
‘ JAS. A. EGGERTON, 
WM. B. WILLIAMS, 
DAVID PARRISH, 
EK. T. RICH, 
Committee. 


Warrenton, N. C., 
Oct. 26th, 1857. 


Messrs. Eacerton, WILLIAMS AND OTHERS, 
Committee, 


Dear BretTaren—After much hesitation, and some doubts as to its pro- 
priety, I have consented to grant the request contained in your note of the 10th 
inst., and herewith forward to you a copy of the sermon. Did I not feel willing 
to rely on the judgment of the brethren, as to the merits of the sermon in ques- 
tion, I should unhesitatingly have declined the request. Hoping the doctrines ad- 
vocated may be made more serviceable to the cause of truth in a published form, I 
yield the manuscript, with the many imperfections it may contain, to your hands. 
May it please our heavenly Father to bless this feeble effort to a good end. 

Accept for yourselves, brethren, my acknowledgments for the courteous manner 
in which you have expressed the wishes of the church. 


With the highest Christian regards, 
J am, your affectionate pastor, 
J. B. SOLOMON. 


WAKE FOREST UNIVERS~ 
LIBRARY 


Digitized by the Internet Archive _ 
‘in 2013 with funding from 


n 2 ‘ 1, “eae : ; . jake: 


ecu ae ee 


SERMON. 


_“ Stand yein the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, 
and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls.”—Jeremiah vi: 16. 


The wisdom of God is shown in the perfection of his plans, 
both as respects their construction, and also their execution, ‘This 
is true of all his works, both in nature and grace. Whatever be 
the end to be attained, the plan by which it is to be done is so 
constructed as to ensure success. Unlike man, Jehovah is under 
no neccessity for making experiments. He has not to resort to a 
variety of expedients, that he may compass the end had in view. 

The truth of this position is found in the economy of the ma- 
terial world. Here every part fulfills its Maker’s design in its 
creation, and in carrying forward his grad design in the con- 
struction of the material fabric. Moreover, while every part con- 
spires to carry forward the designs of the Maker, these designs 
are shown to be harmonious. There is not dissimilarity of de- 
sign, nor do the several parts of this creation tend to the accom- 
plishment of dissimilar designs. 

As this is acknowledged to be true in respect to the world of 
matter, as carrying forward the design of its Creator; so if this 
design be carried forward, it must be by obedience to the laws of 
its construction, and not by a change of those laws, otherwise 
there is error in the construction. But who so bold as to dare 
improve upon the plan of the structure of the material world ! 
He who would do so by a neglect of its laws would not only for- 
feit his claim for sanity of mind, but would dearly pay for his 
temerity. 

But if it be shown that there is perfection in the plan of Jeho- 
vah in his material kingdom, is it unreasonable to look for the 
same perfection in the kingdom of grace? Would it not be to 
charge Jehovah with prizing more highly the material and per- 
ishable, than the spiritual and immortal? And does this accord 
with the character of God? Does he not ever show more care 
and interest for the welfare of the spiritual? Surely none will 
deny it. And is there not perfection in the plan of salvation re- 
vealed in his word? Do we not see his wisdom shine out in un- 
clouded splendor in the perfection of that plan ? 

Again, if this be true of the general plan of salvation, and his 
general purposes of grace, is it reasonable to suppose it would be 
less true in the economy of that last organization which he will 
ever give to the world—the church? Shall there be perfection in 
all his plans affecting the material world, embracing no less the 


6 


dust of the balance than the mountain—the grain of sand than 
the globe? And shall there be perfection in the world of animal 
life, from the insect of a day to the arch-angel ? And shall there 
be perfection in the plan, which was four thousand years in pro- 
cess of development? Shall there, I say, be perfection in all 
these, and yet imperfection be found in the final organization? 
We cannot so think. We regard the church, organized by our 
Lord, as perfectly adapted to the end for which it was appointed. 
For confirmation of this position, consider first, The character 
given it: ‘* Ye (disciples) are the light of the world.’’ Second, 
The work committed to it: ‘‘ Preach the gospel to every crea- 
ture.’’ Third, The permanence given it: ‘‘ The gates of hell shall 
not prevail against it.”’ The church of the Lord Jesus Christ is 
to be, for all coming time, the medium through which the grace 
of God in Christ is to be communicated to a wicked and lost 
world. Can it be reasonably supposed that he constituted it for 
this end, and yet that he left it imperfect, and inadequate to its 
accomplishment? No, he stamped it with marks of the same 
wisdom as found in all other ef his plans. But have the pro- 
fessed followers of Christ been true to the trust committed to 
them? Have they been content to do what he has required, 
without alteration, or amendments? If so, whence the many 
claimants to be his church? and whence the continual clash of 
arms among his professed friends? Evidently there is error. 
All these various claimants cannot possibly be right. 

One says, ‘‘ Lo, here is Christ; another, ‘*No, Lo, there is 
Christ.’’ Now, amidst the din and strife, how is the humble en- 
quirer after truth to decide? How can he determine who, if any, 
is right? By.obedience to our text, let us turn from the noisy 
strife, and seek the will of God, as shown us in his holy word. 
Let us go back to the inspired word for guidance, and devoutly 
listen to its teachings. Then we shall find ‘‘ the old paths—the 
good way.”’ : 

The object of the remarks I have to make, will be to show 
what was ‘‘the good way,’’ in which the apostle acted in refer- 
ence to the organization called church. We, Baptists, my 
friends, are strangers to you. We come amongst you as a people, 
differing from our brethren of other denominations. You have a 
right to ask us who we are, and what do we teach. This you 
have a right to ask, and it becomes our duty to give you a candid 
and plain answer. If our sentiments and motives be honest, we 
need not fear to declare them; and if dishonest, the sooner you 
are apprised of the fact the better. 

It is no new question, my friends, ‘‘ where is the church of 
Jesus Christ?’’? As stated above, there are many claimants, and 
WE among the rest., We shall not turn aside to discuss the 
merits of the respective claimants, bet shall content ourselves by 
an enquiry into the doctrine and policy of the apostolic churches, 
and shall test our claim to the honor of being the churches of 


7 


Jesus Christ, by a comparison of the two—ours with the apostolic 
churches. 

In this investigation we cannot, of course, enter minutely into 
the details of either; but shall only present for discussion, the 
principal points wherein we differ from our brethren of other per- 
suasions. As stated above, we shall present two general points 
for discussion. 


I, What was the polity of the apostolic churches ? 
_ II. What were the doctrines of these churches ? 

We propose to present the views we hold peculiarly on these 
subjects, and give you our reasons for these views as we proceed. 
And permit us to say that we do not differ from our brethren of 
other persuasions materially, as to what we understand of the 
meaning of the term ‘*‘church.’’ ‘It is a congregation of faith- 
ful men, in which the pure word of God is preached, and the 
sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance in 
all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.’’— 
(Book of Common Prayer, art. rel. art. xix.) We understand 
by the term church, in the sense in which we shall use it on the 
present occasion, a local organization for the proper worship of 
God, and administration of his ordinances according to his word. 
And— : 

I. We hold that every separate or individual organization is 
independent of all similar organizations. Each such church is 
equal to any other, and independent of all others. We argue 
this, 

1. From the fact that they are thus represented in the word of 
God. We read of the church at Corinth, the church at Ephesus, 
the church at Rome, &c., &c. The churches of Asia are thus 
addressed. We hear nothing of the Asiatic church, but cHURCIES. 
‘To the seven churches in Asia.’’ ‘*To the seven churches 
which are in Asia.’’ We read nothing of the Huropean church, 
or the African church. ‘The New Testament nowhere speaks of a 
national church, nor does it recognize any national organization 
as the church of Jesus Christ. The several local organizations 
are recognized as so many separately existing organizations, 
which could not have been the case, if there was dependence of 
one upon the other, for in that case neither of these organizations 
would have been complete, and to address them as such would 
have been inappropriate. 

2. Had one of these local organizations been dependent upon 
any other, of whatever character or name, it would have been 
amenable to it, and we cannot believe that such would have been 
the case without some intimation of the fact from Christ, or some 
of the apostles. But that such was not the case, we shall show 
anon. No church in the apostolic day felt its dependence upon 
any other church for its existence, or any part of it. In this, it 
is hardly worth my while to say we differ from perhaps all other 
denominations of any note. Here is the Presbyterian church, the 


8 


Protestant Episcopal church, the Roman Catholic church, the Afe- 
thodist Lipiscopal church, &e., &c., uniting the several separate 
organizations into one creat establishment, thus making them 
mutually dependent on each other, and all more or less “depen- 
dent upon some central power. - In all this we conceive they 
have departed from the ‘old paths’ ’—the apostolic plan, from 
the fact that they have destroyed the independence of the local 
organizations. 

Let it not be said that this is a small matter. We regard no- 
thing as small which Christ has appointed ; and if he has left for 
a; @ cuidance a model perfected, we dare not depart fromit. We 

do not advert to the facts involved in these statements with an 
invidious design, but to bring out our meaning in reference to 
the independence of the several churches. It was a departure 
from this simpite plan in this particular that gave to Rome its 
despotic power for twelve centuries, and thus deluged the world 
in blood and error. We should learn wisdom from the past, and 
although the danger may not now be so imminent, yet we would 
do well to take warning and follow the teachings of Christ. 

II. From these suggestions you would expect that we hold that 
the members of these separate organizations, in their church capa- 
city, constitute the highest ecclesiastical courts for the trial of offences 
and the transaction of business; AND So WE DO. We recognize no 
higher court of appeal, but regard the church as holding plenary 
power, from Christ, to manage all its own affairs, This, we 
think, is plain, from the action of the disciples, as recorded in the 
first chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. Judas Iscariot had 
fallen from his apostleship by transgression, and a successor was 
appointed by the suffrages of the whoie body of disciples then as- 
sembled, including the women.—Actsi: 14, compared with i: 
24-26. "Here we have an illustration of the “old path and good 
way,’’ as practiced by the apostles, in the appointment of an 
apostle. We argue, ‘that if the whole body has a voice in the 
appointment of a minister, it is fair to presume the entire busi- 
ness of the church was transacted by the church itself. But we 
have proof still further. In the fifteenth chapter of Acts, we 
have these facts: ‘‘Then pleased it the apostles, and elders, and 
brethren, eith the whole church, to send chosen men of their own 
company to Antioch, with Paul and Barnabas. And they wrote 
by thein in this manner: The apostles, and elders, and brethren, 
send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in An- 
tioch, and Syria, and Cilicia.” —V. 22, 23. 

We further learn that this epistie was delivered, not to a few 
men of authority in the church, but to the whole body of the 
church. Read 30th verse. ‘So whe n they were dismissed they 
came to Antioch; and when they had gathered the multitude to- 
gether, they delivered the epistle.’’ In this transaction the fol- 
lowing facts are worthy of notice: 1. The difficulty in the church 
at Antioch was among the ‘‘ brethren’’ (members) of the church. 


9 


2. The church determined to investigate the points in dispute. 
3. Feeling the need of counsel, they, of their own accord, seek 
advice of the church at Jerusalem. 4. This advice is given by 
consent of the who!e church. 5. The epistle sent by them (the 
church at Jerusalem) is only advisory, and contains nothing of a 
mandatory character. There is no assumption of a right to con- 
trol or govern the church at Antioch. ‘These facts, it seems to 
us, have a very important bearing in determining the question of 
the rights and authority of the apostolic churches. Whatever is 
done in the matter is done with the consent and participation of 
the whole church. 

But we have not yet done. Paul in his first epistle to the Corin- 
thians, fifth chapter, has occasion to give his opinion in a case of 
disorder that was in thechurch. But he simply gives his opinion 
and advice to the church, that they (the church) should exclude 
this incestuous man from their fellowship. He recognizes the 
principle for which we contend, that whatever was done must be 
done by the whole church. They possessed power to exclude from 
their tellowship, and they only. There was no appeal to a higher 
tribunal. The action of the church to which this disorderly man 
belonged was final. Of this it seems to us there can be no doubt. 
Farther, this action corresponds precisely with the direction of 
Christ, with respect to the man who would not be reconciled to 
his brother, as recorded in the eighteenth chapter of the gospel 
by Matthew. If after private remonstrance and effort, the of- 
fender still remained obstinate, he was to be taken before the 
church; and if he refused to be admonished by them, he was to 
be excluded, and excluded by the action of the church. 'There was 
no appeal allowed to synods, or conferences, or conventions. The 
action of the church was the final action. Hence we regard the 
individual church as the highest ecclesiastical court. This is the 
‘old path—the good way.’’ It is the way in which the apostles 
acted: let us ‘* walk therein.”’ 

T’'o this view agrees also the united testimony of history. The 
churches, as constituted by Christ and his apostles, were commu- 
nities. All were permitted to participate in the transaction of 
the business of the churches ; the women only being forbidden to 
speak in the public assembly: and from the record of Acts first, 
we doubt whether this prohibition extended any farther than to 

a participation in discussions which might arise in the churches.* 
It seems at least clear that even the female part of the churches 
had a voice in the appointment of the minister. This we hold ; 


*Ibeg leave to quote one or two extracts referred to above :—‘‘ The essence of the 
Christian community rested on this: That no one individual should be the chosen, pre- 
eminent organ of the Holy Spirit for the guidance of the whole; but all were to co-operate, 
each at his particular position, and with the gifts bestowed on him, one supplying what 
might be wanted by another—for the advancement of the Christian life and of the common 
end. The Apostle Paul (1 Cor. xiv: 34,) interdicts the female part of the church alone 
from public speaking in the assemblies; which makes it evident again, that no other excep- 
tion existed to the universality of this right:among Christians.” The italics are my own. 
Nean. Hist. Christ. Rel. and Ch. vol. 1, pp. 181-2. 


2 


10 


and it is not uncommon for the sisters to have a voice in the se- 
lection of their pastors. Hence, 

IIL. We hold that the members of these separate organizations 
constitute «a community, each one being entitled to the “rights of a 
citizen, There are no exclusive privileges. One cannot be allowed 
privileges not enjoyed by all the rest. One has no power or in- 
fluence which is not equally enjoyed by all, except such as arise 
from natural advantages. ‘The religion of Christ does not pro- 
pose to interfere with the natural relations and duties of men, 
further than to ennoble and direct them. The members of the 
churches, therefore, had equal rights and privileges. Hence, 
suys the apostle: ‘‘ Now, therefore, ye are no more strangers and 
foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of 
God.’’ Eph. ii: 19. As citizens, they are entitled to the privi- 
leges and immunities of citizenship. Hach one being ouly a citi- 
zen, their rights and privileges must be equal. The jurisdiction of 
the affairs of the church does not therefore belong to a session or 
vestry, or ‘‘ the preacher in charge,’’ or to the conference, either 
‘¢quarterly,’’ ‘‘annual,’”’ or ‘ veneral.’’ It belongs entirely to 
the church, as a body or a comuyinity, and none have a divine 
right to remove it therefrom, This is ‘‘the old path—the good 
way,’ as shown from the Scriptures themselves. Let us “ walk 
therein,”’ 

IV. We hold that no man or set of men has right to make 
Jaws to bind the consciences of the members of the churches. 
The churches of Christ constitute his visible kingdom on earth, 
and the members of these churches are his visible subjects. We 
pretend not to say that all who are members of his churches are 
the real subjects of Christ’s kingdom, but all are his professed 
subjects, and our position is that no man, or assembly of men, 
has right to legislate for the government of these subjects, as such. 
This we argue, 

1. From the fact that it is absurd to say that Christ established 
a kingdom on earth without appointing laws for its government. 
What kind of a kingdom is that destitute of law? Well, if 
Christ has appointed the laws of his own kingdom, he has not 
Jeft it to men todo it. He has left no representative as legislator. 
Again: If he has appointed the laws for the government of his 
own kingdom—his churches—iét is that these laws may be exe- 
cuted with certainty. Now, how could this be, if there was ano- 
ther law-making power? How could we be assured that the 
laws of Christ would not be set aside by the enactment of this 
other law-making power? How, again, could there be conformity 
in the laws of the kingdom, when there is more than one law- 
maker? We hold that Christ has established his kingdom on 
earth, and that he has done So by appointing laws for the gov- 
ernment of his subjects: and if he has appointed these laws, it is 
eS to say that he has left another to do it for him. 

Christ is said to be the ‘‘ Head of the church,’’ in the sense 


11 


of Chief or Governor. He is not said to be one of the heads, but 
tHE Heap. Some claim the bishop for head; the Scriptures 
represent Christ as Head; and any body with more than one 
head is a monster. No well organized body has more than one 
head, in any sense; and as the head gives direction to the entire 
body, so does Christ to his church, which is called his body. 
Christ sustains a similar relation to the church, which the head 
of the man sustains to his body. Assuch, he must control the body ; 
he must direct it; he must provide for it. It is impossible for us 
to have a full sense of this relation which he sustains to the body— 
the church—and tolerate the idea of any other Lawgiver than 
Christ. He,and he only, has the right tomake laws for his kingdom, 

3. Otherwise it is not his kingdom at all. How can that be 
his kingdom, over which he exercises no authority? And how 
can he exercise authority, without law? How, then, can the 
church be called his kingdom, unless it be governed entirely and 
exclusively by his law? As well may we say that this republic 
is a part and parcel of the British dominions. We tgfnot, 
though it be called the United States of America; the name will 
make no difference, if the thing be so. And what if we should 
declare ourselves the subjects of the British crown, while we con- 
tinue to claim the right to execute our own laws? Would not 
that be as consistent, and more pardonable, than for us to profess 
to be the subjects of Christ’s kingdom, and still claim the right 
of making the laws for our own government? Christ is the King 
eternal over his church, and any claim that has the least ten- 
dency to weaken the right which is vested in him, is to that ex- 
tent a denial of his royal prerogative. He reserves to himself this 
right, and we dare not refuse to grant it. 

Let it not be said that the decrees of councils, conventions, 
synods and conferences, are only expressions of opinion, and are 
not intended as Jaws for the government of the churches. The 
history of the past will refute such a plea. If they serve no such 
purpose, what is the use of their publication in the form in which 
they are published. It is but fair to say, that they can serve but 
a poor purpose unless they are regarded in the light of authori- 
tative documents, saying what shall be believed, and what prac- 
tised. Christ is the only Lawgiver to his people. This is ‘‘ the 
old path—the good way.”’ 

V. We hold that the churches are the executives of the laws of 
Christ, the King, and are bound to execute them. We do not 
deny that the churches have authority, nay, much authority. 
But it is not legislative authority. All the power they possess 1s 
executive. There is the difference here, that exists between our 
legislatures and our courts. It is the duty of the legislature 
to make laws, but it is the business of the courts to execute these 
laws. As itis not the right of the court to alter or amend, but 
to execufe the laws of the State, soit is not the duty of the church 
to alter, amend, or in any wise to interfere with the laws of 
Christ, but simply to enforce, or execute the laws which Christ 


12 


has appointed. And here permit me to remark, that we are not 
at liberty to pass upon the propriety or impropriety of any of the 
laws. Do wethink some of them have the appearance of harsh- 
ness? It is not for us to decide that point. We have nothing to 
do with that. All about which we need concern ourselves is— 
first, to know what the law is; and second, to execute its com- 
mands. Doing this, we have discharged our duty, and are not 
responsible for the consequences. But let us not be hasty to con- 
clude that the laws of our King are severe. No: he is benignity 
itself. All the duties he enjoins—all the prohibitions he has 
enacted—all the regulations he has made—are wise and benefi- 
cent, and we shall find it so, if we will obey. He has commanded 
us to ‘‘ teach to observe ALL things WHATSOEVER which HE has com- 
manded us.’’ We dare not teach or do that which another has 
commanded in the name of Christ. We dare not refuse to do all 
that he has commanded. It is his to command; it is ours to 
obey. This is our duty, and if we discharve it, happy are we. 
Our blessed Redeemer has made us, the church, the executors of 
his own laws. Shall we be faithful to the trust committed to 
our care? or shall we virtually complain of his ways, by neglect- 
ing what he has enjoined, and making the plea of a charitable 
disposition? Remember, my friends, Christ will say, ‘to obey 
is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.”’ 

Nor can we shield ourselves from censure by pleading that pru- 
dential considerations may justify us in failing to execute with 
vigor the laws of the kingdom t® which we belong. ‘There is no 
prudence equal to that of obeying the voice of the Lord. Andin 
all such cases we claim to be more prudent than our Lord, and 
propose to amend the plan which he has devised; and thereby 
charge him with devising a plan which we can amend! What 
daring, what horrid presumption do we exhibit, when we refuse 
to execute the Jaws of Christ! If his churches do not execute 
his laws on earth, then who shall? Nav, friends, a strict con- 
formity to the laws of Christ, in all their requirements and pro- 
hibitions—in all he commands and forbids —will please him, and 
this alone. This is the ‘‘old path and gocd way ;’’ let us “‘ walk 
therein.’’ 

VI. We hold that, while the ministers of the gospel should be 
‘Cesteemed very highly for their works’ sake,’’ yet they have no 
right to ‘‘ Jord it over God’s heritage,’’ whether it be done under 
the title of pope or bishop, elder, deacon or pastor ; and whether 
this be done in general councils, synods, conventions or confer- 
ences. 

A faithful minister of the gospel of the Son of God is worthy 
of all honor, as an ambassador for Christ. His office is such as 
no other man holds. The honor conferred by national courts 
upon their ambassadors is paltry, compared to that conferred by 
the King in Zion upon those whom he appoints as his ambassa- 
dors to a guilty world, 


13 


‘«There stands the messenger of truth; there stands 
The legate of the skics! His theme divine, 
His office sacred, his credentials clear.” 


The Scriptures everywhere represent the ministerial office and 
character as of the highest dignity and importance. The minis- 
ter, Ina very important sense, ‘‘ negotiates between God and man.’’ 
And his character and general deportment are expected and re- 
quired by the Scriptures, to manifest a high degree of self-denial. 
All this we grant. We would not, in the least degree, refuse 
the ministers of Jesus Christ the rights and dignities secured to 
them by himself. Nay, he has wisely adjusted the matter, and 
we would not interfere with it. 

All this we hold. But we hold also that the minister, as his 
designation clearly proves, must consent to be the servant, in a 
certain sense, and not the master of the churches. This we 
hold— 

1. From the fact that the apostles themselves did not assume 
the right to govern the churches which they had planted. No- 
where in the New Testament do we find any claim of this char- 
acter. In the case referred to above, (see 1 Cor. v: 4-5,) Paul 
assumes no authority in the premises, but only expresses his 
judgment, and advises the church as to what they should do. 
This, we remark, is a very different course to that of one who 
feels his superior right and power by virtue of his office. In the 
latter case there would be something of a mandatory character. 
But it is not so bere. 

But perhaps a more forcible proof and illustration of our posi- 
tion is found in the conduct of the apostles in the case of the 
church at Antioch seeking advice of the church at Jerusalem. 
Here, as we have already shown, there was no claim to superior 
power and authority offered by the apostles or elders. They par- 
ticipated in the action had, with the whole church, and there is 
not the slightest intimation that any superiority of authority was 
allowed or claimed by any one—not even by the apostles them- 
selves. 

This case seems tous to have avery important bearing on the 
question of the authority of ministers. Here was a fair op- 
portunity afforded these apostles to exercise their authority in 
the matter by issuing a decree that the Christians at Antioch 
should believe this or that, or do this or the other. Had this 
been the case, we cannot doubt that the advocates of clerical 
authority would long since have produced it as proof of the divine 
right to such authority. Why, then, may we not regard it as 
settling the question in favor of our view? We conceive it legit- 
imate to do so. 

This view is further sustained by the language of Paul to the 
Corinthians: ‘‘ Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of 
Christ.’? Paul would put to shame the pretensions of those who 
profess to be his successors in office, and yet claim that others 


14 


should submit to them, in matters of faith and duty. He claimed 
no such right, but directed the church to follow him only as he 
followed Christ. The idea of superiority is inconsistent with 
that of brotherhood. The very term brother requires that there 
be equclity of right, and hence, as applied to the members of the 
Christian churches, is inconsistent with that system which se- 
cures to the minister authority superior to that possessed by the 
Jaity. 

The assumption of authority by the clergy was the work of a 
post-apostolic age. By degrees this was done, till Anti-Christ 
was fully developed in the Bishop of Rome. It was this assunp- 
tion of superior rights, on the part of the clergy, that cul- 
minated in the friehtfal powers of this bishop. For as the min- 
istry was superior to the laity, so was one minister superior to 
others, and thus was the gradation consummated. Thus, too, 
was the simple plan established by our Lord and his apostles sub- 
verted, and a system of priest-craft established. The most an- 
thentic historians of these latter times sustain the views here pre- 
sented. Imperceptibly was the power of the clergy increased, 
and asa consequence, the rights and independence of the laity 
diminished, until the clergy had become omnipotent, and the 
laity had become the mere tools and vassals of this unwarranted 
power. The results of this departure from the apostolic model ; 
the sad spectacle that is presented to the mind of the student of 
ecclesiastical history, for twelve or thirteen centuries, next suc- 
ceeding the triumph of this effort on the part of the professed 
ambassadors of the meek and lowly Jesus, afford a fearful com- 
mentary on the departure of his friends from the plan of his own 
appointment. Had the clergy adhered to the original constitu- 
tion, and contented themselves with their legitimate powers in 
guiding the churches into a vigorous execution of the laws of the 
king, the world would have been spared much of the blood that 
stains the pages of its annals, and Christianity would have been 
held forth to the world as the palladium of her rights and the 
ensign of peace.* 


*In proof of the position here defended, permit me to make the following extracts from 
Neander’s History of the Christian Religion and Church. Speaking of the church of the 
apostolic times, he says: ‘*This was a whole, composed of equal members, all the mem 
bers being but organs of the community, as this was the body quickened by the Spirit of 
Christ. It could hardly work itseif out in a natural way from the essence of the Christian 
life and of Christian fellowship, that this guidance skould be placed in the hands of only one 
individual. The monarchial form of government wag not suited to the Christian community 
of zpirits. The preponderance of one individual at the head of the whole, might too easily 
Operate as a check on the free development of the life of the church, and the free co- 
Cperation of the different organs, in whom the consciousness of mutual independence must 
ever be kept alive. Monarchy in spiritual things doss not harmonise with the spirit of Chris- 
tianity ; for this points every where to the fecling of a mutual need of help; to the ne- 
cessity, and to the great advantage, as well of eomimon pours as of common prayer. 
Again: «as regards the relation ju which these preshyters (elders) stood to the communi- 
ties ; they were not designed toe ere absolate a uthe rity, but to act as presiding oflicers 
and guides of an ecclesiastical republi e; to econduet all things with the co-operation of the 
communities as their minister 4, and not their masters.” Speaking of the ‘* changes in the 
constitution of the Christian church after the «ge of the apostles, he says: § They related 
especially to the three following particulars ; “The distinction of bishops from presby- 


J 


15 


The practice of the apostles should be our guide, for although 
the divergence may at first seem trifling, yet its results may “be 
ot the most fearful characte ", as seen from the facts of authentic 
history. But whatever may be the results, we should follow 
apostolic teachings and practice, because this is the ‘‘ the old 
path—the good way,’’ and a departure therefrom opens the 
flood-gates of corr uption. 

These are our views of church government, aud we conceive 
that they are sanctioned by the Word of God. We cannot enter 
into a full investigation of ail the scriptures pertaining to this 
matter in one discourse, but content ourselves with presenting 
the general outlines of our polity, as contrasted and compared 
with the divine Word. From this imperfect sketch, we are en- 
abled to discover the ‘Sold path.’’ Let us ‘‘ walk therein, and 
we shall find rest to our souls.”’ 

II. This brings us to our second general enquiry: Where is 
the ‘‘ old path and the good way,’’ in respect to the doctrines of 
the apostolic churches? What were the doctrines of the olden 
time—the apostolic times? As in respect to the other, so also in 
respect to this point, we must be permitted to confine ourselves 
to the more prominent points of difference between ourselves and 
others. And, 

I. In what respects do we differ from others in those doc- 
trines generally termed ‘‘the doctrines of grace.’? Permit us 
here to remark, that we do not find such a vast difference be- 
tween ourselves and the published doctrines and standards of 
others—the diversity not being greater, perhaps, than is found to 
exist among our brethren of other persuasions. We are happy 
to he able to make this statement. While our brethren of other 
denoininations still hold and inculcate, as the leading article of 
faith, repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, 
as the condition of justification before God, we hail them as 
children beloved, though disobedient in some very important 
points, and can unite with them in the promotion and inculca- 
tion of these two great doctrines. 

We have said that we do not differ widely from their published 
standards and creeds, yet it is true that we do differ from most 
of them in some of their articles of faith on these doctrines. On 
this point, however, we do not feel called upon on the present oc- 
casion to enter into extended remarks. We will call your atten- 
tion to one point. 

1. While we regard the sovereignty of God as the only true 
idea—the scripture doctrine, applicable to every case of repent- 


cere and the eran aal een ee of the monarchico-episcopal rey government. 
. The distinction of the clergy from the laity, and the formation of a sacerdotal caste, as 
aa pos sed to the evangelical idea of the priesthood. 3. The multiplication of church offi- 
cers.” In referring to the authority assumed by ae cler gy in the age after the apostles, 
he says: ‘*Such an assumption was shown by the Roman bishop, Victor, when about the 
year ‘190 he excommunicated the churches of Asia Minor, on account of some tr ifling dis- 
ute peeeen to were externals.” Vol. J, pp. 183, 184, 189, 190, 214. ‘Translated by 
rof. Tone 


16 


ance and regeneration to God, yet we cannot fully endorse the 
sentiments of the celebrated John Calvin, in his work called his 
‘Tnstitutes.’” We conceive that the doctrine is, in this work, 
pushed to an extreme, and hence conclusions deduced which are 
unwarranted by the word of God. 

2. While we hold the doctrine of the voluntary, free, uncon- 
strained action of man, we cannot fully endorse the sentiments of 
Arminius, or his followers and admirers. We conceive the true 
‘ path,’’ the *‘ good way,”’ to lie in the ‘‘ golden medinm.”’ On 
these points, however, we must be permitted to remark that the 
‘* Arminianism’’ of the present day is a very different thing 
from the doctrines of James Arminius, the reputed founder of 
the Arminian system.* 

II. But in what do we differ from our brethren of other de- 
nominations in respect to the doctrines of the ordinances? In 
these we differ very MATERIALLY from all other denominations 
known among us. Weare, in respect to the ordinances of our 
churches, a ‘‘ peculiar people.’’ Let us see if we are in the 
‘old paths’’ in these matters. By the Scriptures we propose to 
be tried, and abide their decision. For we acknowledge nothing 
else as authoritative in Christian duty, no less than in Christian 
doctrine. This is our book of prayer, discipline, and confession 
of faith. To this we appeal, and with it stand or by it fall. We 
acknowledge no human authority in matters of duty to God. 
We cannot submit to be governed by human creeds, or the un- 
certain and often contradictory teachings of tradition. We re- 
quire a divine warrant for our practice, and nothing less will 
satisfy us. While, therefore, others may content themselves to 
follow the ambiguities of traditionary lore, or make concessions 
to the decrees of synods, conventions or conferences, let us ‘‘ stand 
in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good. 
way, and walk therein.’’ Rest assured if God has given laws to 
his churches, he will not hold him guiltless who forsakes his 
laws, and follows human authority instead of his laws? Are the 
laws of Christ authoritative? Then away with all human creeds. 
Give us THE WorD. We are not willing it shall be supplanted, 
or its authority weakened by its union with the systems of man. 
Taking the Bible, then, as ‘‘ our only rule of faith and practice,”’ 
we discard all other authority as law, and appeal to it as our 
guide. And, 

1, We hold that none but those who make a credible profes- 
sion of faith in Christ are proper subjects for the ordinances of 
his kingdom. Whoever would participate in the ordinances com- 
monly called sacraments, must make a credible profession of faith 
in Christ. We argue this, 


hy 


*It would be a matter of no little surprise to one, whose mind has never been directed 
to this point, to see how different from the doctrines of this great and good man, is that 
system to which his name is now attaehed. It isan injury of the gravest character done 
his name, and its perpetrators should be rebuked, 


17 


(1.) From the fact that all who were baptized by the apostles, 
so far as the record clearly shows, made a profession of faith in 
Jesus, asthe Christ. ‘There is not a case recorded of any others 
receiving baptism at the hands of the apostles. Soon after the 
resurrection of Christ, according to promise previously made, 
the Holy Ghost was poured out on the day of Pentecost. Many 
were convicted of sin, and cried, ‘‘ what shall we do?’’ ‘They 
were told what to do; they complied, and were baptized; and 
the same day three thousand were added to the believers. No 
one claims that any were baptized who did not make a profession 
of faith in Christ. This is the first case of baptism by the apos- 
tles after the resurrection of the adorable Redeemer, and believers 
only were baptized. 

Of course it cannot be expected that we should examine all the 
cases of baptism recorded in the New Testament. We will, how- 
ever, direct your attention to those cases about which difficulties 
in our way are supposed to exist. The first is the case of Lydia, 
recorded in Acts xvi: 14, 15: Lydia believed ;’’ and it is said 
her ‘‘household’’ were baptized with her. If her household 
were not believers, they were either adult or infant unbelievers. 
I suppose no one would claim that they were adult unbelievers. 
Then they must have been infant unbelievers. This is the claim 
of those who rest their claim on this passage. But the utter 
insufficiency of this plea will readily appear, when we consider 
that there is not a word in the record about Lydia’s husband, or 
children. To make this available against us, therefore, we must 
assume, take for granted, without a particle of proof—I. That 
Lydia either was then, or had lately been married. There is no proof 
that she had ever had a husband. 2. We must take for granted, 
upon the admission that she was or had been married, that she 
had children. There is not a word said in the record about her 
children. 38. Upon admission that she had children at all, we 
must assume that they were infants. 4. We must assume that 
these infants were with her at Phillippi. She was of another city, 
several hundred miles distant, and there is no proof that if she 
had children at all, that they were with her. For she seems to 
have been a transient merchant, such as we now call pedlar. 
One thing is certain—whoever might have been the members 
composing her household, we are not warranted by the language 
of the record in concluding there were infant children baptized, 
Much stress has been laid upon the case of the jailer, recorded in 
the same chapter. But the least care will dispel any doubts as 
- to the character of the subjects of the ordinance in this case. It 
is declared that the apostles, Paul and Silas, ‘‘ spake unto him 
the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.’’ Then 
all were the subjects of instruction by the apostles. Farther, it 
is said that the jailer ‘‘ rejoiced, believing in God with all his 
house.’’ Here we are informed that all his house were instructed, 
and that all believed, so that there can be no diiliculty in deter- 


3 


18 

e 

mining that the record sustains our position fully. The house- 
hold of Stephanus is sometimes referred to as proof that the 
apostles baptized infant children upon the faith of their parent or 
parents. Paul says, (1 Cor. i: 16): ‘‘ And I baptized also the 
household of Stephanus.’” Now, says the advocate of infant bap- 
tism, here is a case you cannot deny. There is nothing said 
here of the faith of any, therefore we must presume there were 
infants in the household of Stephanus. But if you will turn to 
the sixteenth chapter of the same epistle, and read the fifteenth 
verse: ‘¢I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stepha- 
nus, that it is the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have ad- 
dicted themselves to the ministry of the saints.’’) In this case 
there is proof to a demonstration, as with the jailer’s .family, 
that there were no infant children baptized in this case by the 
apostles. 

The only remaining case which I now will refer to, is the case 
of Cornelius. The supposed difficulties about this case also van- 
ish at a glance. Cornelius says to Peter, (Acts x: 33,) ‘* Now, 
therefore, we are ali here present before God, to hear all things 
that are commanded thee of God.’’ The historian, in reporting 
the case, says, after the preaching of Peter, ‘‘ The Holy Ghost 
fell on all them which heard the word.” Acts x: 44. And Peter 
commanded those who had received the Holy Ghost, and only 
those, (vs. 47, 48,) to be baptized. 

Now, the cases to which we have referred are the cases of most 
difficulty to our view, and you see that with a little care, they 
make no difficulty whatever. We have attempted a candid in- 
vestigation of these points, and think we have found, that instead 
of operating against our views, they very materially sustain us. 

(2.) The commission under which the apostles acted made no 
mention of any as the proper subjects of Christian baptism, but 
behevers. ‘‘Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to 
every creature: he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, 
and he that believeth not shall be damned.’’ ‘* Go teach all na- 
tions, baptizing them,’’ &c. This is the commission under 
which the disciples were to act, and this mentions no one as 
fitted to receive baptism but believers in Christ. Now, then, it 
must follow that if THIs be the authority upon which baptism is 
administered, and it be administered to any but believers, it 
must be by transcending the commission. It will not do to 
argue that because Christ is silent, THEREFORE we ought to bap- 
tize,them, for he meant so. We suppose that Christ said what 
he meant, and that the Holy Ghost has fairly recorded his lan- 
guage. Nor is there a single case recorded in which the apostles 
baptized any but professed believers. his, then, is ‘‘ the old 
path—the good way.” 

3.) The Scriptures nowhere speak of any receiving baptism 
who did not immediately become members of the churches. The 
Scriptures know nothing of an unbaptized membership, or of a 


Cee! 


= & 


19 


baptized non-membership. They nowhere speak of any being 
baptized who were not members of the churches, except such 
as had been excluded from fellowship, as Simon Magus, the in- 
cestuous man, &c., &c. Let us then bear this in miud, and 
enquire— 

(4.) What were the duties required of all the members of the 
churches? And we will see that the apostles knew nothing of 
infant baptism, because they knew nothing of infant church mem- 
bership. Examine into the nature of the duties enjoined upon 
all the church members, and then ask yourselves what is requi- 
site to a discharge of these duties. See if these duties can be 
discharged by any other than a heart renewed by divine grace. 
I seriously call the attention of all who differ from us to the con- 
sideration of this point. Did the apostles in their epistles address 
an wnregenerate membership? And are the duties enumerated to 
be performed by the unsanctified? Nay, vermy. These are 
duties enjoined upon all the members of the churches, and re- 
quire to their discharge, capacity for understanding, and repent- 
ance and faith on the part of the subjects. From tne nature, 
therefore, of the duties required of all the members of the 
churches, we conclude that none but regenerate persons can be 
members of the churches, according to apostolic institution. 
Those who discharge these duties must be renewed in the spirit of 
their mind. It is useless to speak of their discharge by any 
other. How, then, could they be addressed to others? Remem- 
ber, we are not warranted from the record to believe that any 
had been baptized who were not considered members of the 
churches, except such as had been excommunicated. All others 
baptized are members; and these duties are enjoined upon them 
as such. 

(5.) These views are sustained by the most learned and candid: 
ecclesiastical historians. There is a unanimity in this matter 
that is utterly-inconsistent with the opposite of our opinion. 
Dr. Wall, the champion of infant baptism, frankly admits all we 
claim. He says: ‘‘ Among all the persons that are recorded as 
baptized by the apostles, there is no express mention of any in- 
fant.’’ Hist. In. Bap., Pref. p. 27 Ox. ed. He pleads for the 
rite on the ground of tradition and Jewish analogy. Our propo- 
sition is that there is no cleay case of infant baptism in the re- 
cord ; this Dr. W. owns in this passage. The learned Neander 
says: ‘‘ Baptism was administered at first only to adults, as men 
were accustomed to conceive baptism and faith as strictly con- 
nected. We have all reason for not deriving infant baptism from 
apostolic institution, and the recognition of it which followed 
somewhat later as an apostolic tradition, serves to confirm this 
hypothesis.’ Neander, vol. I, p.311. Quotations to an almost 
indefinite extent might be made to the same effect. But our 
time will not allow. These, therefore, must suffice. If, there- 
fore, we listen to the voice of the Holy Spirit, as it speaks in the 


20 


word ; if we listen to the voice of history, we hear only of pro- 
fessed believers being received into the churches during the apos- 
tolic times, and immediately thereafter. From this testimony 
we conclude that we are justified in admitting those only to the 
ordinances of the church who profess faith in the Son of God. 
This is ‘* the old path—the good way.’’ Let us ‘‘ walk there- 
ot es 

2. We hold that nothing is valid baptism but the immersion of 
a professed believer, in water, by a properly authorized administra- 
tor. Herein we differ from our brethren of other denominations. 
Pedobaptists regard, not only the infant children of believing 
parents as fit subjects of baptism, which we have just considered, 
but they also regard sprinkling or pouring of water, in the name 
of the Trinity, as the act of baptism, as well as immersion. We 
take issue on this ground, and claim that sprinkling or pouring 
is not baptism at all. Let us briefly consider this point ; and, in 
regard to it, let us ‘‘ask for the old path’’—the apostolic way. 
We argue that immersion only is baptism; that anything else is 
clearly no baptism at all. If Christ intended, as no doubt he 
did, that this ordinance should be observed by all his followers, 
it is not reasonable to suppose that he has used a word, which 
was, at the time he used it, vague and uncertain as to its mean- 
ing. It is reasonable to suppose that the term he used in giving 
his command was one, the meaning of which was well understood 
by the apostles. 

Again: If Christ commanded sprinkling for baptism, he cer- 
tainly did not command pouring or imniersion. If he commanded 
immersion, he certainly did not command either of the others, 

for the actions expressed by these words are materially and neces- 
sarily different, and we cannot suppose that the blessed Redeemer 
did not use a word of specific meaning. If he used one of specific 
meaning, the enquiry is, what is that meaning ? 

Once more: If Christ commanded some specific action, has 
any man or class of men aright to change the meaning of the 
term, so as that a different action from the one originally re- 
quired shall be recognized as obedience to Christ? We answer, 
emphatically, no. We have already shown that the church has 
executive power only, not legislative. 

But did Christ command some specific action, and was that 
immersion? We hold that he did. As proof, 

(1.) We hold that he uses a term to express this action which 
primarily and ordinarily means to immerse. Lhis no scholar will 
dare deny. The ordinary and general signification of the word 
is immerse. Now, upon the admission that it may mean some- 
thing else in extraordinary connections, yet we would claim that 
baptism is immersion, because this is acknowledged by all to be its 
general signification. If the term used is admitted to have two 
significations, one the general and ordinary, and the other the 
rare and uncommon, wouid it not be reasonable, nay, cerfain, 


21 


that our Lord used the word in its general and common, and not 
in its ¢nfrequent and uncommon signification? We hold that he 
would. Whatever was the sense in which he used it, it is the 
duty of Christians to comply with that sense of the word. It is 
not enough, as we conceive, that we find that the word very 
rarely means something else, and claim that this is what the 
Saviour required his followers to do. If we have reason to be- 
lieve that the Saviour used this word in its ordinary and general 
sense, then it is as much our duty to comply with this sense as 
though the word had no other meaning. 

(2.) But this word not only ordinarily means immerse or dip, 
but strictly speaking, it is claimed by us, that it means nothing 
else. We grant that ina free translation it may be rendered 
‘‘wash,’’ and the general sense may be well enough expressed. 
But this fact does not alter the signification of the word, or give 
it an additional one. But that this word, strictly speaking, sig- 
nifies immerse only, is the opinion of some of the most learned 
men of modern times. Dr. Wall says: ‘‘It is plain that the 
ordinary and general practice of St. John, the apostles and prim- 
itive church, was to baptize by putting the person into the water, 
or causing him to go into the water. Nether do I know of any 
Protestant who has dened it.”’ (The italics are my own.) See 
Wall’s Defense In. Bap., p. 150-1. Here we have the testimony 
of this distinguished Peedobaptist that he did not know of a siagle 
Protestant, in his day, who denied that immersion was the prac- 
_ tice of the apostles and primitive church. But had not the word 
used by our Saviour justified this opinion, is it not reasonable to 
suppose that there would have been some who would have called 
it in question ? 

John Calvin, the founder of the Presbyterian church, says: 
‘<The very word baptize, however, signifies to immerse ; and itis 
certain that immersion was the practice of the ancient church.”’ 
Inst. Book LV, chap. 15, § 19. 

Dr. Chalmers, the greatest of the divines of the Kirk of Scot- 
land, says: ‘* The original meaning of the word baptism is im- 
mersion.’’ Lec. on Rom., lec. 30. 

These witnesses serve asa specimen. Others, of high charac- 
ter as scholars and Christians, bear similar testimony to the truth 
of our position. We might detain you till night reading similar 
extracts, but these must suffice for the present. But however 
large may be the signification of the word, it cannot possibly mean 
sprinkle or pour. No lexicographer has given either of these sig- 
nifications as the classical meaning of this word; and we hold 
that the duty of the friends of the Redeemer is to follow the 
plain direction of Christ. This is ‘‘the old path and the good 
way; let us walk therein, and we ‘shall find rest to our 
souls.’’ 

(3.) As already hinted, the practice of the churches in the ages 
immediately succeeding the apostles, was immersion. ‘To this no 


22 


exception is found, except in cases of sickness. This baptism, 
‘in present danger of death,’’ was administered, because_it was 
believed that one dying unbaptized could not be saved. We can- 
not now enter into the proof of this last point, but there is an 
abundance of proof at hand. 

Neander says: ‘‘In respect to the form of baptism, it was in 
conformity with the original institution and the original import 
of the symbol, performed by immersion, as a sign of entire bap- 
tism into the Holy Spirit, of being entirely penetrated by the 
same.”’ Vol. I, p. 310. He further says: ‘‘It was only with 
the sick, where the exigency required it, that any exception was 
made.**» Ib. 

Dr. Wall, in speaking of the ancient practice, says: ‘‘ Their 
general and ordinary way was to baptize by immersion, or dip- 
ping the person, whether it were an infant or grown man or 
woman, into the water. This is so plain and clear by an infinite 
number of passages, that, as one cannot but pity the weak en- 
deavors of such pedobaptists as would maintain the negative of 
it, so also we ought to disown and show a dislike of the profane 
scofis which some people give the English anti-pedobaptists 
merely for their use of dipping.’’—His. In. Bap., vol. I, p. 384, 
ed. Ox. : 

We shall satisfy ourself with one more extract, taken from Dr. 
Whitby’s note on Rom. vi: 4. Hesays: ‘It being so expressly 
declared here, and in Col. ii: 12, that we are buried with Christ 
in baptism by being buried under the water, and the argument 
to oblige us to a conformity to his death, by dying to sin, being 
taken hence, and this zmmersion being religiously observed by all 
Christians for thirteen centuries, and approved by our church, and 
the change of it unto sprinkling, even without any allowance 
from the Author of this institution, or any license from any cown- 
cil of the church, being that which the Romanisé still urgeth to 
justify his refusal of the ewp to the larity, it were to be wished 
that this custom might be again of general use, and aspersion 
only permitted as of old, in cases of the clinici, or in present dan- 
ger of death.” 

Such is the testimony of history, as related by padobaptists 
themselves. Surely, no one will accuse us of unreasonableness 
for adhering to a practice sanctioned by the word of God, and 
made venerable by the lapse of eighteen ceuturies. We are 
taught by these historic documents, that sprinkling and pouring 
for baptism is an innovation; and, except in cases of sickness, an 
innovation of a comparatively recent date, From these facts, 

- too, we find ourselves surrounded by the holy men of past gene- 
rations. We stand amidst the hosts of God’s elect, and looking 
back, up the stream of time, see the millions of the redeemed and 
saved for thirteen hundred years, ‘* buried with Christ in bap- 
tism,’’? and thus declaring their faith in a Saviour once buried, 
but now arisen to die no more, Thus. the voice of the martyred 


23 


ones reaches us through their actions, and says: ‘* Follow the 
“Lamb whithersoever he goeth.’” With such proofs as these, my 
friends, we cannot believe that any other action is baptism. We 
are honest in our sentiments, and if you will consider these facts 
and arguments, you will find them not unimportant. Nay, to us 
they are decisive. This is ‘‘the old path, the good way.’”’ Let 
us walk therein. Let nothing deter us from following the com- 
mands of our Lord. ‘Jf ye love me, keep MY COMMANDMENTS.” 

3. We hold that none should be adinitted to the communion of 
the Lord’s supper who have not thus been baptized. We hold, 
if not thus baptized, they are not beptized at all, and if not bap- 
tized at all, they are not entitled to a participation of the supper 
of the Lord. We argue this, 

(1.) From the example of our Lord in its institution. He ate 
the supper with his disciples, and not with those who were not 
his disciples. While, therefore, we are not perinitted to see and 
know the hearts of men, so as to decide who are the true disciples of 
our Lord, we are to be governed by his laws in reference to his 
own requirements. The question as to whether the disciples who 
ate the last supper with the Saviour had been baptized, has been 
thought to deserve some influence in the settlement of this ques- 
tion We cannot thirk, in the first place, that it is a competent 
enquiry, or that if found that they had not been baptized, that it 
would determine anything in this matter. But it is to beg the 
question altogether to assume that they had not been baptized ; 
and do not think us severe if we claim that it is done to serve a 
purpose. We conceive that it is the weakness of the cause it 
would serve that raises a question at this point. But we have 
said that if this were a fact settled, that these disciples had not 
been baptized, it would be destitute of force in the present en- 
quiry—1. Because our Lord being Sovereign, could invite whom- 
soever he would on that occasion to partake of the supper. 2nd, 
and chiefly ; Because when he gave the commission to his disci- 
ples, he made baptism the first duty of the believer. ‘‘Go ye, 
therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of 
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching 
them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.”’ 
Mat. xxviii: 19, 20. ‘Go ye into all the world, and preach the 
gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall 
be saved.” Mark xvi: 15,16. Acting under this commission, 
the disciples must have required baptism immediately after the 
exercise of faith ; so that participation in the Lord’s supper could 
not have preceded baptism. Baptism, in the order o7 the com- 
mission, must follow faith, and is recognized in the New Testa- 
ment as the first act of obedience after faith. How did the disci- 
ples understand the commission on this point? Evidently as we 
do. On the day of Pentecost Peter preached, three thousand 
believed, were bapiized, aud afterwards partook of the supper. 
Acts i: 42. 


24 


From these considerations we see that repentance and faith, 
though requisite, are not the only requisites to communion at the 
Lord’s supper. Christ has placed baptism between faith and 
communion, and we dare not remove it. We rejoice to believe 
that our brethren of other denominations are true lovers of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, and should it be our happy lot, after the toils 
and conflicts of life are past, to ‘‘ enter into the rest that remains 
to the people of God,’’ we expect to meet thousands of them 
there. ‘This is the faith and hope we fondly cherish. But this 
cannot determine the question of communion. The law of Christ 
must control us in this matter, and not our feelings. We regard 
them as children of God by faith in Christ, but as disobedient 
children, and disobedient in the very matter that would entitle 
them to participation in the supper of our Lord. As illustration : 
A., the head of a family, leaves home, and gives his son B. 
charge of his matters during his absence, with special direction 
that he (B.) must see that each member of the family washes his 
jace before he eats breakfast, each day during his absence. He 
also makes this command known to the family before he leaves. 
This arrangement is observed by all the family but C., the second 
son of A. He comes to the table and demands his meat, while 
he has not washed his face. B. refuses to admit him. Could he 
do otherwise, if he respected his father’s commands? Surely not. 
Would it avail anything if C. should plead that he was a son of 
A.? Would not B. say to him, ‘‘I know you are. I know that 
you are my brother, and if I were to consult my feelings of affec- 
tion for you, I would gladly admit you ; but you know our father’s 
command, and I dare not disregard it.’’ Would not this be dis- 
charging his duty? But suppose ©. should say, ‘‘ Do you not 
believe my father will give me my share of the estate when I 
come to my majority ? and how then can you refuse me a seat at 
table?’’? B. would reply: ‘‘I suppose he will, but that is nothing 
to the purpose. Father has not given that into my hands. He 
has only directed me as to what shall be required before you eat, 
and in obedience to his commands, I cannot admit you.’”’ IJ ask 
you, my friends, if C. has any right to complain at the conduct 
of B.? This is our languageto you. That we do not admit you 
is your own faulé, and not ours. We love those who love the 
Lord Jesus Christ, but we feel bound to obey him in regard to his 
own ordinances: We do not feel at liberty to invert the order of 
these duties. Our Lord has committed his ordinances to the 
keeping of his church, and although we regard you as children 
by faith, and heirs of everlasting rest, yet our Lord’s commands 
will not allow us to invite you to his table. That we shall com- 
mune in heaven is not the question, but whether you have com- 
eae with a duty that Christ demands before you can come to his 
table. 

(2.) The supper has been placed within the church, and we 
dare not take it outside. None are within the church but those 


ao 


who have been baptized. None have been baptized but those 
who have been immersed upon a profession of faith by a properly 
qualified administrator. Therefore, none but those who have 
thus been baptized are entitled to a seat at the commiutnion table. 

(3.) We act upon the same principle upon which our brethren 
of other denominations act in regard to the supper. They hold 
that baptism is a prerequisite to communion, The only differ- 
ence is in regard to what constitutes baptism. 

(4.) We hold that there is no saving efficacy in these orai- 
nances, but regard them as binding on the authority of Christ. 
He has positively enjoined them, and we hold that they are bind- 
ing on that account. We believe also that they are typical of the 
change wrought in the heart by the Holy Spirit. Oceans of wa- 
ter cannot wash away our sin. ‘he heart all polluted can ve 
cleansed only by the blood of Christ, applied ‘ through faith in 
his name.’’ ‘‘ Baptism is not the putting away the filth of the 
flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God.’’ The 
blood of the Son of God only can remove the guilt of sin, and 
save us from death. But.in baptism, when administered in ac- 
cordance with the word of God, we stipulate a good conscience 
towards God. Well may the follower of the blessed Redeemer 
have this good conscience when he obeys this command, Here 
he marks the foot-prints of his Redeemer, as he descended into 
the Jordan, and was baptized by his servant John. It was then 
the Holy Spirit visibly descended and rested on the Holy One, 
and the voice from heaven said: ‘*'This is my beloved Son, in 
whom I am well pleased.”’ ’Tis here he shows his love to his 
Saviour while he is baptized in the hkeness of his burial, and 
thereby declares his faith in that resurrection of which Christ has 
become ‘‘ the first fruits.’’ It is here, too, that he symbolizes the 
death which he has undergone to sin, through the operation of 
the Spirit of God, and his newness of life. Well may he here 
stipulate ‘¢a good conscience toward God.’ This is ‘the old 
path and good way.’’ This is the doctrine of the apostles. Let 
us ‘‘walk therein,’’ that we may have “a good conscience to- 
ward God.”’ 

Ill. Having ‘‘stood in the ways, and seen, and asked for the 
old paths, where is the good way,’’ and as we conceive, found 
that way, let us heed the injunction of our text, and ‘‘ waLK 
THEREIN.’’ This is the command of God. It will be of no ser- 
vice to have found ‘the old path—the good way,”’ if we walk 
not therein. At whatever cost, or whatever sacrifice, we should 
walk in this ‘old path.’’ Does it seem ‘strait and nar- 
row?’ Never mind that—it is ‘‘ the good way.’’ Does it cost 
us a sacrifice of our former opinions and dearly prized faith? 
Better -sacrifice. these than walk in any other than the “old 
paths.”’ 


*¢ And must I part with all I have, 
My dearest Lord, for thee?” 


26 


‘¢Tt ig better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather 
than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into everlasting 
fire.’ ‘He that taketh not his cross and followeth after me is 
not worthy of me.’’ ‘* WALK TIEREIN’’ is the command of God. 
We are not to stop with having found ‘‘ the old paths.’’ This is 
necessary to walking therein, but having found the way, let us 
make haste to walk init. ‘To obey is better than sacrifice, and 
to hearken than the fat of rams. Rebellion is as the sin of 
witchcrafé.”’ . 

JV. In conclusion, let us note the encouragement, ‘* Ye shall 
find rest to your souls.’? To walkin ‘the old paths—the good 
way,’ is the only means of finding rest to our souls. It is the 
way that God has appointed. Haste, and delay not to keep the 
commandments of God. In the discharge of the duties herein 
enjoined, with those in which we all agree, we shall find ‘‘ rest 
to our souls ’’ in this life, and that which is to come. 


CoNCLUSION. 


Thus we have briefly presented our views as tested by the 
Scriptures. How do they, correspond? Are our teachings in 
harmony with them or not? We leave it with you to decide. 
These are the doctrines we expect to be taught in this house, 
which we now dedicate to the service of Almighty God. May the 
presence of the Lord God dwell here; muy he bless those who 
worship here; may the truth of the everlasting gospel ever be 
proclaimed ; and may many happy souls be born to God here, 
and live with him in the skies, to bless his name that SHaron 
meeting house, Warren Oo., N. @., was ever built and dedi-— 
cated to his service. And you, my brother,* through whose 
efforts this house has been erected, have great reason to thank 
God and take courage. May God abundantly bless your efforts 
to build up his cause here; and may you live to see many of your 
friends and relatives born to God within these walls. And may 
he presence of God be with you, and the blessings of our heavenly 
Father be with us all. Amen. 


€ Rey. L. C. Perkinson, 


